hybrid mileage

I gave you my mileage & a link to greenhybrid, sooooory you thought me a
jerk.

"Gary Gorbet" <ggorbet.DeleteThis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:191120072025552855%ggorbet@houston.rr.com...
> In article <lpa4k3hvp7ifsmno6mgb5pqshujp34740o.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, muzzy
> <x33y55z.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> jeeeeeez - sure would be nice to get some answers to the question
>> posed - what's with you jerks?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:38:38 -0600, Gary Gorbet
>> <ggorbet.DeleteThis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <difuj351rb43fqkgavsiou4vlktvbosfcu.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, muzzy
>> ><x33y55z.DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have a '04 Civic hybrid that I have been disappointed with the
>> >> mileage thereof (33-34). Would you that have late model Civic
>> >> hybrids comment on your mileage experienced - would appreciat
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >My `03 civic hybrid gets right at 40 MPG in mostly city-street driving.
>> >I record the mileage with every tank. It gets better in the Fall and
>> >Spring.
> Since most everyone responded to you "question" ("comment on your
> mileage experienced") by giving the mileage they experienced, that's
> obviously what we thought you wanted. If not, perhaps you could be less
> of a jerk and explain more clearly what it is you *do* want.
 >> Stay informed about: hybrid mileage 

Elle wrote:
>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>>the point is, an average car back in 1983 got the same
>>>mileage as what it takes a SPECIALLY DESIGNED car to get
>>>today.
>>>
>>>That's called moving backwards.
>
>
> The special design is called a larger displacement engine.
>
>



Yep in combination with heavier vehicle weight.

JT

(Lean 'n mean is best!)
 >> Stay informed about: hybrid mileage 

jim beam wrote:

> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> That's about the same as my ancient '83 Civic FE...
>
>
> what does it weigh?
>


Just under a ton dripping wet...

<G>

JT
 >> Stay informed about: hybrid mileage 

Spazpop2000 wrote:

> Well, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call the Civic FE the
> "average" car of 1983; I'm betting that most cars of that year (era)
> weighed more, had a larger displacement engine, seated/hauled more
> people/cargo...
>

The FE weighed more than the Civic DX (Higher trim level)


> Even if you were to narrow down your field of vehicles (like big gov
> does when applying the CAFE regulations), the FE wasn't even the
> "average" Civic in 1983, was it? Seems to me (and I could be wrong on
> this, so forgive me if I am), the FE stands for "Fuel Efficient",
> which means it had to have SOME concessions with regard to the
> "average" Civic (smaller engine, smaller wheels, narrower tires, lack
> of some amenities for weight savings, etc.).
>

Actually, the FE sported the same features of the 1500 SI including
tach, extar insulation, 13" wheels etc. but had the 1300 engine instead.
I have an '82 Civic four speed as well and that was a very basic car.
The FE is two trim levels higher.

Yes, the 1300 engine was rehashed for '82/83 for the FE and was the
forunner of the 1300 CRX that would follow that boasted very high MPG
figures.


> I'm not knocking your car, just validating your argument. The FE was
> the 80s attempt at obtaining better fuel efficiency. The hybrids of
> today are approaching the same problem from a different perspective.
> The important thing to remember is that, whether you agree with one
> particular approach or not, the *effort* to improve mileage is to be
> commended, not slammed.
>
> If you really want to start a bragging war- I ride my bike to/from the
> grocery store= INFINITY mpg (and bikes were invented long before the
> FE)...
>

The big thing here is that I own the car outright... No banker riding
in the back seat. Also, as I stated in a previous post, it is much more
user friendly when it comes to maintenance and repair. Right now the car
has less than 120K and these were 300K vehicles provided they were
maintained properly.

This may well be my last car so long nobody whacks it..

JT




>
>
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:04:39 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop.DeleteThis@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <6qydnReMpO0WG93anZ2dnUVZ_r6rnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
>>"Justbob30" <NoThank.DeleteThis@you.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, is your 83 one of the 2 cleanest cars sold in the US & oh, yeah, does
>>>it have all the modern amenities of a 07?
>>
>>the point is, an average car back in 1983 got the same mileage as what
>>it takes a SPECIALLY DESIGNED car to get today.
>>
>>That's called moving backwards.
 >> Stay informed about: hybrid mileage 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy.TakeThisOut@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>>>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>>the point is, an average car back in 1983 got the same
>>>>mileage as what it takes a SPECIALLY DESIGNED car to get
>>>>today.
>>>>
>>>>That's called moving backwards.
>>
>>
>> The special design is called a larger displacement
>> engine.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Yep in combination with heavier vehicle weight.
>
> JT
>
> (Lean 'n mean is best!)

Indeed. I forgot that your 1983 Honda is much lighter as
well as having a smaller engine. I think my 1.5L 1991 Civic
is similar in weight to modern Civics, though. Little aside:
I have been driving my Civic in a much hotter part of the
country (Arizona) the last few months, with more city
driving, and mileage is definitely down, but not by too
much. Say from 42 mpg to 39 mpg. I am pretty sure the
gasoline is mostly unmodified here (e.g. rarely ethanol
stations).
 >> Stay informed about: hybrid mileage